Reading the mere words "bipartisan group of legislators" the other day was enough to cue Handel's Hallelujah Chorus ... or at least Fred G. Sanford, when he'd simulate a heart attack and tell Elizabeth "this is the big one."

Go figure: We can all agree on something after all. In Connecticut, for example, the aforementioned bipartisan group supported Sen. Cathy Osten's latest gaming (read: sports betting) bill that would grant the Mashantucket and Mohegan tribes the exclusive right to offer online gaming and sports wagering via computers and hand-held devices from anywhere in the state.

Mad props and bon mots to Sen. Osten. Not only for her diligence, but the residual effects of it, such as reaching across the aisle to find a spot on the village green for all of us to trumpet sports betting and its revenue-producing tentacles. The bipartisan thing, given our volcanic political climate, is significant. Practical in this case, too, now that published reports indicate Rhode Island cleared $400,000 in one day earlier this week from sports betting. That was its revenue on Super Bowl Sunday. Imagine the possibilities for us.

Ah, but this is Connecticut, where an insect in the analgesic (fly in the ointment) faithfully and maddeningly threatens progress. MGM, a corporate monolith with no significant standing in Connecticut, has threatened litigation to "defend its right to compete" here. Its most recent statement:

"As we have said consistently, if Connecticut is to maximize the economic impact of a commercial casino license, a transparent, competitive process is in the state's best interest. That is equally true for sports betting, and the most direct path to bring the greatest results for Connecticut taxpayers, economic growth and state revenue."

Hence, sports betting's future is stranded on that perilous piece of real estate east of the rock and west of the hard place. Even if all of us in Connecticut agree that the Mashantuckets and Mohegans should operate sports betting exclusively — and even if the tribes make it convenient and accessible — another party threatens our evolution.

So what if some (all?) of the same legislators join in a similar bipartisan effort to rewrite state law and render MGM's arguments less applicable?

It's beyond bothersome to think that some corporate monolith with no real ties to us can dictate our future this way. But it's also true that antitrust laws ensure that fair competition exists in the open-market economy.

I propose the following:

A bipartisan bill is laudable. But it's wasted energy if it has no chance to pass. A better use of legislators' time is to enact law saying that whoever is competing should also be contributing to the state/community they are part of, whether through jobs or revenue. The state (and government as a whole) should be making the ground rules for competition, but also encouraging the community part.

The market would remain a fair place to compete, provided the competitors are part of the fabric in real and meaningful ways. There's no denying the Mohegan and Mashantucket Tribes are part of us through revenue, jobs and quality of life.

MGM? Not so much.

Lawmakers could word this better than I. But the premise is that Connecticut law should reflect the bounds of constitutionality (fair competition) and the idea that institutions need to be contributing something before they get to compete.

If MGM wants its chance at bat, let MGM figure out a way to become relevant here first.

I'm not sure how we got so lucky here in Connecticut. States all around us adopted sports betting without much perspiration. Rhode Island just made an eyelash shy of a half-million in one day. And yet we have to collectively walk barefoot across Texas to get the same opportunity.

So why not get creative? It's counterintuitive to think an entity with no ties to us can stifle potential revenue like this. The Mohegans and Mashantuckets are entrenched here. That ought to count.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro